(01-09-2014 02:28 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: That is a big part of the problem. The Admins hid behind a wall when an issue like this comes up rather than actually interacting. Poor policy from the beginning.

That's not poor policy. It's being careful, cautious and logical. Being patient and taking the time to contemplate a solution is better than running out into action and being bombarded because you don't have a clear solution to the situation.

I can understand why some discussions and policy making goes on behind closed doors. I'm cool with that. I just wish that when this issue cropped up that we were at least given some hope that WC's actions were actually being reviewed and discussed. Instead we got responses from hughsie that none of the forum team could be bothered to read his more incriminating threads (I know they are long and not fun to dig through). That felt like our opinions and personal interactions with him, and his rotten behavior were just being ignored. It caused more posts, more arguing, etc.

Then it's stuff like this that makes us feel like we are being treated like petulant children, instead of having our opinions actually considered. It really unsettled me that someone with such a high level of authority on is forum views the members in this way

(29-08-2014 09:09 PM)Smercury44 Wrote:

(29-08-2014 08:52 PM)Hughsie Wrote: Actually, his reputation was shot to shit before he arrived and he was never gonna be welcomed. I've had people point to an "awful" post he's made and straight up asked them if they would consider it awful if it was made to him as opposed to by him, and been told they wouldn't see it as wrong that way round.

Let's face it, he could turn up whenever he returns and talk about how he saved a bunch of children from a burning down orphanage, despite having two broken legs at the time, and everyone would get mad at him for it.

Hughsie, I'm sorry, but I find this post extremely insulting. Is this the opinion you have of the forum members? That we are absolutely unable to consider a person objectively if they truly tried to reform behavior? That we lack the critical thinking and reasoning it takes to give someone a fair shot?

I can count at least six forum members that I truly did not like, that I thought were abrasive, disruptive, and not nice people to have around the forum. I had the capacity to watch posts and behavior, and change my opinion. I've changed negative reps to positive ones.

There is no excuse for his behavior. As Rev said, he has made his own bed.

Edit: I want to add that I'm glad to hear the admins have actually read everything now. I hope this is the case.

I hope that the world turns, and things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that, even though I do not know you, and even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you, I love you. With all my heart, I love you. - V for Vendetta

(01-09-2014 02:28 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: That is a big part of the problem. The Admins hid behind a wall when an issue like this comes up rather than actually interacting. Poor policy from the beginning.

That's not poor policy. It's being careful, cautious and logical. Being patient and taking the time to contemplate a solution is better than running out into action and being bombarded because you don't have a clear solution to the situation.

I'm gonna... say... that being a mod was hard enough for me, being admin *is* more stressful. Being a member of the forum team is a volunteer position, in that respect I don't feel too comfortable with criticizing too much - we should rather thank them for the hard work that they put in. But then, when there really is an issue... I'd just like to feel that we're on the same side and not... I dunno, "Daddy is gonna decide and will tell you when he's good and ready." Tough to get that right

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

(01-09-2014 03:00 PM)Smercury44 Wrote: I can understand why some discussions and policy making goes on behind closed doors. I'm cool with that. I just wish that when this issue cropped up that we were at least given some hope that WC's actions were actually being reviewed and discussed. Instead we got responses from hughsie that none of the forum team could be bothered to read his more incriminating threads (I know they are long and not fun to dig through). That felt like our opinions and personal interactions with him, and his rotten behavior were just being ignored. It caused more posts, more arguing, etc.

Then it's stuff like this that makes us feel like we are being treated like petulant children, instead of having our opinions actually considered. It really unsettled me that someone with such a high level of authority on is forum views the members in this way

I think Hughsie is being misunderstood here, like he often is. Believe me, I'm his best friend and I hear the meanings behind his posts first hand. He tries to see everything very neutrally. He was correct in that WC never had a chance, and that some things were overruled quite unfairly. What he said wasn't to belittle any of the members here or make anyone feeling like children.

I don't ever recall Hughsie saying the forum team couldn't be bothered with reading WC's post. From the very start a good portion of the forum team was very involved in numerous WC threads. However, Hughsie and I had busy lives (he was busy with work and I was starting college) and lacked the time to go through these threads ourselves, so we continuously asked for links to posts that contained evidence of vile statements, and we were never linked any. What he meant was that he couldn't be bothered with reading through the threads himself because all of them combined were like 50+ pages of threads, and reading through that much when you don't really care about the topic is tedious and boring. That's why we both asked to be linked to posts or intense sections of threads, but no one (not even members deeply involved in these threads that had kept close watch on them) did so.

I don't think it should've been announced when/if WC's actions were being discussed by the forum team. When something like this is causing a disturbance on the forum (even if it's smaller than this) the forum team tackles it. It shouldn't even be asked about because it's self explanatory.

(01-09-2014 02:39 PM)Ferdinand Wrote: That's not poor policy. It's being careful, cautious and logical. Being patient and taking the time to contemplate a solution is better than running out into action and being bombarded because you don't have a clear solution to the situation.

I can understand why some discussions and policy making goes on behind closed doors. I'm cool with that. I just wish that when this issue cropped up that we were at least given some hope that WC's actions were actually being reviewed and discussed. Instead we got responses from hughsie that none of the forum team could be bothered to read his more incriminating threads (I know they are long and not fun to dig through). That felt like our opinions and personal interactions with him, and his rotten behavior were just being ignored. It caused more posts, more arguing, etc.

Then it's stuff like this that makes us feel like we are being treated like petulant children, instead of having our opinions actually considered. It really unsettled me that someone with such a high level of authority on is forum views the members in this way

(29-08-2014 09:09 PM)Smercury44 Wrote: Hughsie, I'm sorry, but I find this post extremely insulting. Is this the opinion you have of the forum members? That we are absolutely unable to consider a person objectively if they truly tried to reform behavior? That we lack the critical thinking and reasoning it takes to give someone a fair shot?

I can count at least six forum members that I truly did not like, that I thought were abrasive, disruptive, and not nice people to have around the forum. I had the capacity to watch posts and behavior, and change my opinion. I've changed negative reps to positive ones.

There is no excuse for his behavior. As Rev said, he has made his own bed.

Edit: I want to add that I'm glad to hear the admins have actually read everything now. I hope this is the case.

Actually, I said that I had no intention of reading through 62 pages if no-one wanted to narrow the search. I said nothing of anyone else. I also repeated many times that I was only involving myself in that sense as regular member and not as a Super-Mod. I wasn't asking what he'd done wrong because I was looking over his behaviour for the team (if the Admins wanted me to do that they'd ask, and they hadn't). I was asking because everyone got mad at me for not hating him so I asked for reasons why I should.

Please remember that most of my interactions here are as a regular member, not a SM, and my views are my own personal ones, not official FT views (unless I put them in purple).

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....BestFerdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.WorstFerdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.

It does no good to provide links to posts that are edited to clean them up and make them more acceptable.

If WC is being allowed back here - his ability to edit needs to be curtailed or we will be back to his 'word' being believed over the word of multiple long time members. I doubt anyone has the time to quote/screen shot all his posts as soon as they appear.

If he acts right - over time allow him more and more freedom.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF